• While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].

Firing of 800 NOAA Employees

Mike Smith said:
Hi Boris, just because I write something could be done doesn't mean I think it should be done.

With the exception of IDSS and similar NWS activities I'm perfectly content with the current public/private sector balance. IDSS, which was never a good idea, needs to go away in an era of scare resources.
Click to expand...
Correct on "could be" and "should be." I just think in these volatile times, it is easier to misinterpret or misread things on social media. That's why I asked for clarification.
 
Mike Smith said:
I appreciated your comment. But, as to the above, let the city or county pay for the private sector meteorologist.

However, it is absurd to believe NFL and other pro teams cannot afford private sector support.
Click to expand...
Same goes for MLB. How many times do we see them playing games with lightning in the area? And then one close strike, and they all run off the field! And then the ground crew comes out and starts laying the tarp? Not a wise thing to do. and they assume just b/c lightning is occurring it is going to rain. This is where a dedicated meteorologist for the team or park would really make a difference.
 
Mike Smith said:
While the British Meteorological Office and the French meteorological services have for-profit arms, there is nothing in the NWS enabling legislation which allows them to do so. There would be a collapse in support for the NWS if that were allowed.

I'm confused by your phrase, "much like other companies" The NWS is a government agency of the United States under the U.S. Department of Commerce. Under the U.S. Constitution, there must enabled legislation for the government to do something.
Click to expand...

I had the UKMO in mind when asking the question, as that seems like a good approach. It provides free to the public forecasts, videos, information, and even an app, while also providing revenue generating services to the private sector.

With budgets under such scrutiny in US politics, allowing the NWS to offer similar services to the private sector could bring in much needed financial support.
 
Jamie H said:
I had the UKMO in mind when asking the question, as that seems like a good approach. It provides free to the public forecasts, videos, information, and even an app, while also providing revenue generating services to the private sector.
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Why should the NWS provide duplicative services to private sector weather companies who have invested millions in their businesses? The USA is very different from Europe w/r/t the relation between the public and private sectors.

That said, if the safeguards I mentioned were part of it, I'd be for it.
 
Mike Smith said:
I don't understand. Why should the NWS provide duplicative services to private sector weather companies who have invested millions in their businesses? The USA is very different from Europe w/r/t the relation between the public and private sectors.

That said, if the safeguards I mentioned were part of it, I'd be for it.
Click to expand...

Why *shouldn't* the NWS also provide profit making services, helping to reduce federal spending? What does private sector investment have to do with it? The taxpayer has invested in all the technology and information which the private sector companies utilise for their own profit making services.
 
Jamie H said:
Why *shouldn't* the NWS also provide profit making services, helping to reduce federal spending? What does private sector investment have to do with it? The taxpayer has invested in all the technology and information which the private sector companies utilise for their own profit making services.
Click to expand...

That isn't correct, Jamie. The lightning networks are private sector and the NWS uses that data. The NWS uses private sector weather satellites and private sector data from aircraft in-flight. In a few locations, the NWS uses data from private sector weather networks. But that isn't the main point: Without tax dollars, where will the money to run the NWS and government in general come from if the government displaces businesses? As the U.S. has found out, continue the "all things to all people" long enough and you are $38 TRILLION in debt and you find that you have to raise tariffs and find other sources of revenue because the debt goes up another trillion every 100 days or so.

I'll say it again: Private sector weather companies have been the NWS's biggest advocates. I've testified before Congress, twice, in support of the core mission of the NWS (btw, at my expense). That would turn overnight if the NWS started competing without the safeguards I previously listed. When that occurs, the whole system is at risk of falling apart.

Again: the United States has a Constitution whose purpose is to limit government. The private sector is prime. Perhaps one could argue the merits of that system but it is what it is.
 
Mike Smith said:
As the U.S. has found out, continue the "all things to all people" long enough and you are $38 TRILLION in debt and you find that you have to raise tariffs and find other sources of revenue because the debt goes up another trillion every 100 days or so.
Click to expand...
You keep bringing up debt and deficit, Mike, but the current government is proposing to INCREASE the debt and deficit by making tax cuts, mainly for the wealthiest taxpayers, that exceed even the most optimistic estimates of savings from the various cuts including the NWS. The wealthiest taxpayers pay a tiny fraction of what they paid 50 or 80 years ago. I know this is getting off the topic of NWS cuts but you have mentioned debt and deficit in several posts, and the budget framework that is being pushed by the current administration actually raises the debt and deficit rather than cutting them. As has been the case with every Republican administration going back 50+ years, but this time the cuts are more severe and certainly impacting things we care about a great deal, while being part of an overall plan that does nothing to reduce the deficit or debt.
 
Mike Smith said:
That isn't correct, Jamie. The lightning networks are private sector and the NWS uses that data. The NWS uses private sector weather satellites and private sector data from aircraft in-flight. In a few locations, the NWS uses data from private sector weather networks. But that isn't the main point: Without tax dollars, where will the money to run the NWS and government in general come from if the government displaces businesses? As the U.S. has found out, continue the "all things to all people" long enough and you are $38 TRILLION in debt and you find that you have to raise tariffs and find other sources of revenue because the debt goes up another trillion every 100 days or so.
Click to expand...

We obviously have different ideological views on the public vs private sector, which isn't worth going round in circles over :)

But I do want to mention a couple of things: firstly I wan't advocating for the NWS to displace private sector weather providers, rather to exist alongside them. With revenue generating, it would mean lower support from the federal government, which would help reduce the debt you mention.

Secondly, I do find it interesting that in this scenario, the private companies largely benefit from a form of socialism, in that the majority (thanks for correcting me!) of the data comes from the taxpayer and is then used to create products for sale. Surely, if the NWS cannot monetise this data, why should it be freely available for the private sector? Isn't that bad business, regarding the deficit?

I appreciate I may not be making a fully coherent argument, just from afar it doesn't seem to make sense to me.
 
John Farley said:
Mike, but the current government is proposing to INCREASE the debt and deficit by making tax cuts, mainly for the wealthiest taxpayers,
Click to expand...
As we both know, only Congress can change tax rates. I don't know where you are getting your information about an additional tax cut (which I personally oppose because of the deficit) but I haven't seen anything in writing that President Trump has submitted to Congress in this regard.

Jamie H said:
I do find it interesting that in this scenario, the private companies largely benefit from a form of socialism, in that the majority (thanks for correcting me!) of the data comes from the taxpayer and is then used to create products for sale. Surely, if the NWS cannot monetise this data, why should it be freely available for the private sector?
Click to expand...
Jaime, because the taxpayers -- including commercial weather companies and their employees -- are among the taxpayers who pay for the data. If we pay for it, why shouldn't we use it!? The NWS doesn't pay for anything; all of its funds come from taxpayers.

Take, say, the National Parks Service: use fees are paid for certain facilities because the service has to clean up messes and pay for general maintenance. That isn't at all true of meteorological data. The fact I might use a satellite dish to receive exactly the same satellite data streams that NWS HQ uses to send data to its field offices costs the NWS zero. I am 73 years-old and have loved weather since I was 5. If I was a teenager today, I would have a backyard dish. The NWS wouldn't even know about it.

I mowed numerous lawns and, even as a teenager, had to file a tax return and send the IRS a check every year. Why shouldn't I get something out of those hard-earned monies I had to send to the government?

The unfairness would be the NWS using data it didn't pay for to compete again the people who actually paid for the NWS's data.

Does that clear it up?
 
Last edited:
Mike Smith said:
As we both know, only Congress can change tax rates. I don't know where you are getting your information about an additional tax cut (which I personally oppose because of the deficit) but I haven't seen anything in writing that President Trump has submitted to Congress in this regard.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear you oppose the proposed tax cuts, but Trump clearly supports them. See the last 2 sentences of this article. Even if all the spending cuts originally proposed were to go through, which per your last post it looks like some will not, the size of this proposed tax cut would greatly increase the debt and deficit.

 
John Farley said:
Glad to hear you oppose the proposed tax cuts, but Trump clearly supports them. See the last 2 sentences of this article. Even if all the spending cuts originally proposed were to go through, which per your last post it looks like some will not, the size of this proposed tax cut would greatly increase the debt and deficit.
Click to expand...

Good morning, John. I want to make sure we are discussing the same thing. The original Trump tax cuts were temporary and are going to expire. What is being discussed in the article you cite, and others, is an extension of the current tax rates, not a further tax cut. I am in favor of the extension (preferably making them permanent) but am not in favor of additional cuts.
 
We need to reform middle class entitlements and keep NOAA fully funded. DOGE is going to save a rounding error. No matter what the tax code is at the end of the year, mandatory spending on middle class entitlements will keep choking off discretionary spending on everything else.

By law Social Security, Medicare, and the ACA have set spending. Can't really avoid interest on the debt either. Everything else from Medicaid to Defense to NASA and NOAA must be re-appropriated every year. Now I don't want to hear about how Social Security/Medicare have their own segregated funds when the Federal Gov overall is running Trillion Dollar deficits.

If mandatory spending was ended by statute; then, everything would be discretionary annually. Perhaps then Congress could make better decisions. Right now we are looking at incomplete upper air balloon releases, staff shortages, and fatigue. Probably the same going on over at ATC air traffic control. It's all a train wreck.

All that said the private-public partnership works great when NOAA is fully funded. Let the private sector advance and innovate for commerce; then, it's probably more economical for NOAA to use those tools. Dept. of Commerce of course! Then NOAA can lead in pure research. NOAA must be fully funded; and, research should not face DEI or climate litmus tests to acquire grants.
 
Here is a late-breaking story from CNN about the Trump administration's rejection of FEMA disaster aid related to the recent tornadoes in Arkansas:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/23/weather/trump-denied-disaster-aid-arkansas-tornadoes/index.html

Here are two other related CNN stories posted today (4/23/2025) and on 3/26/2025 about FEMA staffing cuts or elimination:


 
Last edited:
I found this story, and while it contains the good news that OMA is going back to launching two rawinsondes/day, it is more evidence this whole mess is often malicious compliance by NWS and/or NOAA management. www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-weather-balloons-will-launch-again-valley/64584212 All it took was a complaint to the White House.

Is OMA getting more people? Not exactly, they are "reassigning meteorologists" to OMA. From where are these meteorologists coming? No clue. It is necessary that meteorologists launch balloons? No. It can be done by HS interns, college meteorology students, or by automated devices. Why do they need "more meteorologists" for something that takes two hours (one hour per launch) each day?

What a mess!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top